The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,073 times Debate No: 43008
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




1st round is acceptance
2nd and 3rd is argument
4th is refutes and conclusion


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote

Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights.

Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners.
Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the "democratic order", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights!
Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways.
According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half.
Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF,
Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.


Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people.

After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make.

Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society.

Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.
Debate Round No. 2


Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual.
According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again.
Now lets see how this helps felons blend back:
According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past.
Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF.
Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they "stole" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society.
Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole.

One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society?

Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.


jamer12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


neilk787 forfeited this round.


jamer12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by zrg4848 5 years ago
I can't wait to hear both arguments!!
Posted by neilk787 5 years ago
You are making your own arguments
Posted by jamer12 5 years ago
Sorry but am I refuting your points you made in this round, or am I making my own arguments?
Posted by neilk787 5 years ago
gawd lulu, this is why i rejected ur debate. and i dont want to do this debate anymore because the topic wording just changed
Posted by lin0913 5 years ago
Incorrect. The second speaker also refutes. Sometimes, so does the first speaker (for Con).
But as it's your debate, 1 round should be fine I guess.
Posted by neilk787 5 years ago
well of course u as a third spekaer wuld say that. in DCUDL we only get one round for refutes
Posted by lin0913 5 years ago
Neil, don't you think more than 1 round is necessary for refutes?
BTW good opening.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ruiran0326 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF without responding to Pro's argument